Chester v. Vannoy et al

Filing 78

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the 68 motion to continue filed by Respondent is GRANTED. The State must either retry Chester or release him from state custody by no later than 11/15/2018, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan on 10/1/2018. (jls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
TEDDY CHESTER,
Petitioner

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 16-17754

DARREL VANNOY,
Respondent

SECTION: “E” (3)

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion for Additional Time to Retry Petitioner filed by
Respondent Darrel Vannoy. 1 On June 11, 2018, the Court granted a Writ of Habeas Corpus
filed by Petitioner Teddy Chester. 2 The Court ordered the State of Louisiana to either retry
Chester or release him from state custody within 120 days. 3 For the reasons that follow,
the Court GRANTS the motion. The State of Louisiana must either retry Chester or
release him from state custody by no later than November 15, 2018.
BACKGROUND
On June 11, 2018, the Court granted a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Petitioner
Teddy Chester ordering the State of Louisiana to either retry Chester or release him from
state custody within 120 days. 4 This Court retains jurisdiction over its conditional writ of
habeas corpus until the writ has been satisfied. 5 This Court’s grant of additional time is
reviewed for abuse of discretion. 6
Chester’s state court trial originally was set to begin on September 17, 2018.7

R. Doc. 68.
R. Doc. 52.
3 R. Doc. 52 at 1.
4 R. Doc. 52 at 1. October 9, 2018 is 120 days from the Court’s order.
5 Weary v. Cain, 587 Fed. App’x 797, 799 (2014); Gibbs v. Frank, 500 F.2d 202, 205 (3d Cir. 2007).
6 Weary, 587 Fed. App’x at 799.
7 R. Doc. 74-4.
1

2

1

However, the State moved to continue the trial date. 8 On September 19, 2018, the trial
court denied the State’s motion for a continuance, and on September 20, 2018 the trial
court denied reconsideration of that motion. 9 The State applied for a writ to the Louisiana
Supreme Court. 10 The Louisiana Supreme Court, sua sponte, issued a stay of all
proceedings until Monday, September 24, 2018 pending resolution of several writs before
it. 11 The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled on the pending writs and lifted the stay on
September 21, 2018. 12 The State again filed a motion for a continuance with the state trial
court on September 24, 2018, which was granted. 13 The trial court set the trial to
commence on Monday, October 29, 2018. 14
Rule 60(b) provides that a court, “[o]n motion and just terms,” may “relieve a
party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding” due to:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (2) newly
discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been
discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b); (3) fraud
(whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or
misconduct by an opposing party; (4) the judgment is void; (5) the judgment
has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier
judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is
no longer equitable; or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. 15
The purpose of Rule 60(b) “is to balance the principle of finality of a judgment with
the interest of the court in seeing that justice is done in light of all the facts.” 16 The Court
will grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6), only upon a showing of “extraordinary

R. Doc. 74-20.
R. Doc. 74-20; R. Doc. 74-21 at 4-5.
10 R. Doc. 74-21 at 5.
11 In addition to a writ on the denial of the motion to continue, the Louisiana Supreme Court also had writs
on several evidentiary issues pending before it. R. Doc. 74 at 22-23.
12 State v. Chester, No. 18-KK-1565 (La. 9/21/18); see also News Release No. 44, Clerk of Supreme Court of
Louisiana, http://www.lasc.org/news_releases/2018/2018-044.asp.
13 R. Doc. 74-27.
14 R. Doc. 74-27 at 35.
15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(6).
16 Hesling v. CSX Transp., Inc., 396 F.3d 632, 638 (5th Cir. 2005).
8
9

2

circumstances.” 17 In Buck v. Davis, the Supreme Court explained that, in determining
whether a movant has demonstrated “extraordinary circumstances,” courts may consider
a “wide range of factors,” which may include “‘the risk of injustice to the parties’ and ‘the
risk of undermining the public’s confidence in the judicial process.’” 18 Additionally, the
Fifth Circuit has articulated several factors relevant to the Rule 60(b)(6) analysis,
including whether the motion was filed within a reasonable time. 19 The Fifth Circuit has
explained, “that the rule should be liberally construed in order to achieve substantial
justice.” 20
In this case, substantial justice will be served by allowing the State additional time
to retry Petitioner. The complexity and volume of pretrial proceedings, including the writs
taken to the state appellate courts, are reasons justifying relief from the Court’s original
conditional Writ of Habeas Corpus. Also important to the Court’s decision is that the State
moved for additional time to retry petitioner before violating the Court’s order.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion to continue filed by Respondent, 21 is
GRANTED. The State must either retry Chester or release him from state custody by no
later than November 15, 2018.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 1st day of October, 2018.
________________________________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Rocha v. Thaler, 619 F.3d 387, 400 (5th Cir. 2010).
137 S. Ct. 759, 778 (2017) (quoting Liljeberg v. Health Servs. Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 863–64
(1988).
19 Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396, 402 (5th Cir. 1981).
20 Id.
21 R. Doc. 68.
17

18

3